ADDENDA - Final Milestone Report Joint SO/AC New gtld Applicant Support Working Group (WG)

Transcription

1 ADDENDA - Final Milestone Report Joint SO/AC New gtld Applicant Support Working Group (WG) 1. Members, Affiliations, Statements of Interest, Attendance Summary and Analysis - Snapshot Public Comments Received from June 16 to August Blog posting Call for Input: Support for New gtld Applicants June Text of Initial Snapshot Released on June Transcript - Brussels Meeting Workshop Session June Cover letter and text Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gtld Applicant Support (JAS WG) taken on 18 September Excerpt Prepared for Special Meeting of ICANN Board September Note: This Addenda is part of the Milestone Report produced by the Join SO/AC New gtld Applicant Support Working Group and published 10 November The Working Group is often referenced as WG or JAS WG. 1

2 1. Members, Affiliations, Statements of Interest, Attendance 1.1 Members and Respective Affiliations Below is a list of members of this WG. This WG also had the support of ICANN Staff, specifically: Karla Valente, Gisella Grubber-White, Glen de Saint Géry, Olof Nordling. Name Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Sébastien Bachollet Tijani Ben Jemaa Fabien Betremieux Eric Brunner-Williams Olga Cavalli Rafik Dammak Avri Doria William Drake Alex Gakuru Dr. Govind Alan Greenberg Anthony Harris Dave Kissoondoyal Cheryl Langdon Orr Evan Leibovitch Andrew Mack Michele Neylon Elaine Pruis Vanda Scartezini Baudouin Schombe Alioune Traore Richard Tindal Affiliation ALAC ALAC At Large Individual; AFNIC Individual NomCom Appointee NCSG NCS; co-chair NCSG NCSG GAC ALAC ISCPC At Large ALAC ALAC; co-chair CBUC RrSG Individual Individual AFRALO; At Large Individual Individual 1.2 Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2

3 The SOIs below can also be found at: Individuals & Affiliations Carlos Dionisio Aguirre ALAC Eric Brunner-Williams Individual SOIs 1. Current vocation, employer and position a. LAWYER - Specialist in Business Rights; b. PROFESSOR of ECONOMY & PROFESSOR of LAW, ECONOMY & BUSINESS in the INFORMATION SOCIETY (UNC - National University of Cordoba - Argentina) 2. Type of work performed in 1 above a. Owner of his law firm; b. Academical specially. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement none 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? I have no commercial interests in ICANN activities. 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member I'm current re-elected ALAC member. 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) LAC region 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization Non Commercial End Users - ALAC 1. Current vocation, employer and position Vocation: Mathematician/programmer, technology policy advocate Employer:.nai project Position: Coordinator 2. Type of work performed in #1 above Implementation of a registry services capable platform, DAG review, preliminary application development, status reporting to stakeholders. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. None, though I operate on a pro-bono basis, an accredited registrar. 4. Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. Are you representing other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding 3

4 Sébastien Bachollet ALAC Tijani Ben Jemaa At Large Fabien Betremieux Individual - AFNIC your nomination/selection as a work team member. Describe any tangible or intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such processes. For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this should be a part of the statement of interest, just as should employment by a contracted party, or a business relationship with a noncontracted party who has an interest in policy outcomes. I am unable to identify any tangible or intangible benefit from volunteering to participate in the ICANN GNSO policy development process. If, and when, ICANN announces that applications for new gtlds will be accepted, then tangible and/or intangible benefit will exist and this SOI updated. See: 1. Current vocation, employer and position Executive Director of the Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Executive Director 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement None 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? None. No 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) Africa 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization AFRALO / At-Large 1. Current vocation, employer and position Employer: AFNIC, non-profit in charge of.fr,.re and several other cctlds with a "co-development" developing country outreach program ( Position : Registry Services Development and International Cooperation 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Provision of registry services to new gtld applicants Provision of expertise & tools to cctld managers of developping countries through a capacity building approach (the "International College") 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any 4

5 Olga Cavalli Nominating Committee Appointee Rafik Dammak Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Avri Doria Non Commercial Stakeholder Group JAS co-chair entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement None 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? AFNIC has a commercial interest in the provision of registry services to new gtld applicants. 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) Europe; Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization Supporting the City of Paris' representative in his role as an observer to the GNSO/RySG See: 1. Current vocation, employer and position Research Student, University of Tokyo 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Research/Academic 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement none 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? none 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member none 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) Africa 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization NCSG 1. Current vocation, employer and position I am a portfolio worker in the field of technical and policy system architectures and currently have the following mix of employment: a. I have a part time position as Adjunct Professor at Luleå University of Technology; b. I work under a recurring part time contract for the IGF Secretariat; 5

6 Updated: 27 April 2010 c. I am a listed affiliate of Interisle; d. I act as an independent consultant to clients considering application in the forthcoming gtld process. 2. Type of Work With regard to each of the employers in question 1 above: a. LTU: I am a research professor working on Delay Tolerant Networking Technology under a European Commission research grant. Supervise the research of several students. Do a research of my own on routing in a DTN and on methods of network management in a DTN. b. UN/IGF: Assist in preparing papers of various sorts, provide technical consultation on issues in Internet governance. c. Interisle: no contracts at the moment. d. Consulting: I provide advice for possible applicants for community based gtlds. For the most part, I provide this as an incidental service in exchange for coffee and pastry, while for others I set up a longer term consultant agreement that includes payment. My consultant agreement includes the following: Nothing in this agreement commits Avri Doria to take any particular positions within ICANN, any ICANN internal organizations or working groups. With regard to Internet technical or policy work, Avri Doria remains a free agent except as constrained by any non disclosure agreements agreed to by both parties. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. None 4. Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. Are you representing other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination/selection as a work team member. I am a member and currently serve as the Chair of the NCSG Executive Committee and do represent them in other groups such as the OSC. In this role, while I do need to explain my reasoning to the NCSG membership I am not bound in the positions I take. Of course if my positions were to start to run counter to the interests of the NCSG as perceived by its membership, they may remove me from my seat on the Executive Committee. I would probably remove myself before that happened. I do not represent the views of any client I may have and always insist that I remain a free agent in any agreement. I will leave any employment that attempts to restrict this free agency and understand that any employer unhappy with my expressed views may discontinue their agreement with me. Specific statement regarding the various groups that I may be engaged in: I represent the the NCSG in the OSC In the PDP and WG work teams and in the COTS work team, as well as the VI WG and the newgtldapsup WG I participate in my own capacity but do have a special concern for the interests of international non commercial users of the Internet and for their adequate representation and opportunities in ICANN processes. 5. Describe any tangible or intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such processes. For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to 6

7 William Drake Non Commercial Stakeholder Group participate, this should be a part of the statement of interest, just as should employment by a contracted party, or a business relationship with a non- contracted party who has an interest in policy outcomes. As far as my university position goes, they could not care less about ICANN and generally consider it an interference in my work. In terms of my work in the IGF, I am sure the knowledge I have about how things work in ICANN and what goes on is an advantage. It is possible that consulting opportunities may be made possible by my range of volunteer activities in ICANN and the opinions I express and postions I take in those activities. Other then that, I think I am an 'ICANN Addict', someone who cares about the organization in many respects and wants to participate to make sure it comes out right. Specific statement regarding the various groups that I may be engaged in: Re VIWG: As far as VI is concerned, it is critical the GNSO come up with a policy rather quickly and come up with a good policy that has consensus. This will be both interesting and challenging. I enjoy participating in things that are interesting and challenging and I suppose that is also something I will get out of this process. Re: newgtldapsup WG, I have been concerned since the time when I was a member of the GNSO with pricing policies that would make new gtlds prohibitively expensive for those who have a good social or cultural use/need but who do not have deep pockets. Doing this satisfy a personal need to see social justice done in any business I may be involved in. Re OSC membership as well as participation in PPSC PDP and WG Work Teams and the OSC Council Operations Team: this for me is work that was left incomplete from my service as council chair. Working as a member of these groups is part of my self definition as one who see tasks through to the end. I find living within my own self definition to be critical to my mental well being. 6. Location I maintain residences in Providence USA and Luleå Sweden and split my time between these locations, a hotel in Geneva Switzerland and various airports. 7. Stakeholder Group I am a member of the NCSG and currently serve as Chair of its Executive Committee. 1. Current vocation, employer and position Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Academic & some policy consulting, none involving ICANN 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement None 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? None 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or 7

8 Alex Gakuru Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Dr. Govind person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None 1. Current vocation, employer and position Primarily an ICT systems consultant trading as Way Forward Technologies. Self-employed and holds Lead Consultant title. Also serves as (unpaid) Chairman, ICT Consumers Association of Kenya. Recently appointed as Councilor, Broadcast Content Advisory Council Communications Commission of Kenya the converged national ICT sector regulator. 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Way Forward Technologies develops and deploys integrated information and communications technologies content solutions thus consults mainly in the following areas databases, software development, open source software, ICT Migration, digital animation, project management, telecommunications consultancy, training, and ICT research services. As chair ICT Consumers Association of Kenya, and closely working with civil society, human rights and social justice organisations, my work involves promoting consumer rights and interests through constructive engagements with all ICT stakeholders (government, regulator and private sector players). Through the media brings consumer rights to the fore in regard to policy, legislation, regulation and at the market place. As member Broadcast Content Advisory Council, my advisory duties are to advise the regulator on the content that is broadcast on Kenyan public communications space and its adherence to the National ICT Policy, Kenya Information and Communications Act, and all relevant regulations. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement No financial, ownership, or senior management interest in any registry, registrar, cctld, Internet technologies or equipment firms, or other firms that are interested in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? I do not have any commercial interest in ICANN policy outcomes and I represent no other parties. 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None. 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) Africa (Kenya) 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization A member of the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group(NCSG) where I am leading the Consumer Interest Group. I was elected (in 2009) as Africa Representative, Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). I participate on PDP-WT and now JAS WG - for which I write this SOI. 8

9 GAC - India Alan Greenberg ALAC Anthony Harris Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency Dave Kissoondoyal At Large Evan Leibovitch ALAC JAS co-chair Andrew Mack CBUC See: 1. Current vocation, employer and position Executive Director of Argentina Internet Association CABASE; Executive Director of Latin America and Caribbean Federation of Internet and Electronic Commerce - ecom-lac 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Non-profit Association tasks - Internet services development and regulatory work, representation in global Internet fora. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement None whatsoever 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? Interest in new gtlds, as a potential applicant. No other parties represented. 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member Am a member of the ISPCP constituency. 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) Latin America/Caribbean 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization CSG See: See: 1. Current vocation, employer and position I am Principal of AMGlobal Consulting, a boutique consulting firm based in the US (DC area) working with emerging markets and technology issues. 2. Type of work performed in 1 above We work with companies and donor agencies interested in doing more work in emerging markets, looking at how new technology and tech policy is developing in these markets, and how technology will affect the development of these markets. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN 9

10 Michele Neylon Registrar Stakeholder Group Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Elaine Pruis Individual has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement None. 4.Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? Our firm has done consulting at different points for a range of clients (companies, donors, trade associations and regional business coalitions) interested in how internet governance issues might affect future business and the business environment. We specialize in work with Africa and Latin America. I would be participating in my personal capacity and not representing the views of anyone else. 5.Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) North America/USA 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization I'm a new member of the BC. See: See: 1. Current vocation, employer and position Vice President, Client Relations at Minds + Machines 2. Type of work performed in 1 above M+M is a Registry Services provider and Consulting firm for new TLD applicants. My role is to participate in ICANN policy creation, instruct clients on new TLD application requirements, and liaise with the technical staff on developing the registry software to meet the established requirements. As the previous Liaison for CoCCA (Council of Country Code Administrators, a group of cctld operators that share resources and registry tools) I have nearly a decade of experience working with third world and post conflict cctld operators such as Afghanistan. I'm deeply interested in ensuring that the new TLD process is inclusive and all interested parties have the opportunity to apply and launch viable TLDs. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement I am a senior manager for a registry services provider and new TLD consulting company. 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? a. ICANN policy directly influences the way we will operate our business. Requirements on registries such as Escrow, PDDRP etc do matter. However, creating support for disadvantaged applicants does not have a commercial affect on M+M, therefore my participation in this particular working group is the most neutral 10

11 Vanda Scartezini Individual Baudouin Schombe AFRALO - At large it could possibly be in this phase of ICANN's policy development. b. No. 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None. 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) North America. 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization As a new company without any TLDs in the root, M+M is not a formal member of the Registry SO but I suppose that is where we would fit if we were allowed. 1. Current vocation, employer and position a) Partner POLO Consultores Associados and IT TREND Consulting b) ALTIS Software & Services ( and FITEC ( (telecommunications & IT research and development) c) Nexti ( ALS under LACRALO association of ITC executive women) 2. Type of work performed in 1 above a) Consulting senior partner; b) Chair of the board; c) Vice chair 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. None 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Advisor of a potential new gtld without compensation. 4.1 Are you representing other parties? NO 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member None 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization I am acting as liaison to the board of ICANN representing ALAC I am also member of an ALS under LACRALO. 1. Current vocation, employer and position ICT Academy agency manager, I am involved in Icann towards CAFEC NGO like African ALS. I am now GNSO/NCUC member. National Coordinator Of NGO network called Réseau National des ONG pour la Promotion des NTIC (RERONTIC) and Gaid member for African Civil Society for Information Society ( ACSIS). 11

12 Alioune Traore Individual Richard Tindal Individual Individual 2. Type of work performed in 1 above Implementing ICT community access (telecentre). Supporting cctld redelegation for DR Congo. Organizing training for different community in grass-root level. 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement none 4. Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development outcomes. Are you representing other parties? No commercial interest. My representation role is under AFRALO, Regional At-Large Organisation for Africa 5. Describe any arrangements or agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination or selection as an advisory group team member AFRALO MEMBERS: no any arrangement or agreement but I am sure to have their support 6. Geographic Region associated with the nationality of volunteer (Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe) AFRICA 7. Stakeholder Group(s) in which volunteer currently participates within the ICANN organization I am involved in various Icann community: NCUC/GNSO, Vertical Integration, IRTP B and BCEC See: 12

13 Addenda to JAS WG Final Milestone Report Date: November Attendance This attendance record is for the weekly conference calls in The legend used is: 1 attendance 0 absent Blank absent, no apologies, no attendance Date format month.day Members Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sebastien Bachollet Alan Greenberg Dave Kissoondoyal Evan Leibovitch Tijani Ben Jemaa Carlos Aguirre Rafik Dammak Avri Doria Alex Gakuru William Drake 0 Baudoin Schombe Olga Cavalli Andrew Mack Michael Palage 1 Fabien Betremieux Elaine Pruis Richard Tindal Alioune Traore Eric Brunner Williams Vanda Scartezini Tony Harris Dr Govind Michele Neylon Olof Nordling Karla Valente Glen de Saint Gery Gisella Gruber-White

14 Addenda to JAS WG Final Milestone Report Date: November 2010 Members Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sebastien Bachollet Alan Greenberg Dave Kissoondoyal Evan Leibovitch Tijani Ben Jemaa Carlos Aguirre Rafik Dammak Avri Doria Alex Gakuru William Drake Baudoin Schombe Olga Cavalli Andrew Mack Michael Palage Fabien Betremieux 1 1 Elaine Pruis Richard Tindal Alioune Traore Eric Brunner Williams Vanda Scartezini Tony Harris Dr Govind Michele Neylon Olof Nordling Karla Valente Glen de Saint Gery Gisella Gruber-White

15 2. Summary and Analysis - Snapshot Public Comments Received from June 16 to August The full text of the comments received can be found at: Overview The English language public comment period ran from 16 June 2010 to 21 July An extended public comment period to accommodate French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese ran from 23 July 2010 to 23 August There were thirteen (13) submissions from eight (8) different parties: o AfriICANN/AFRALO Statement o Danny Younger o Stefano Cimatoribus o George Kirikos - Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. o Jeff Neuman Neustar o Dr. Ibaa Oueichek - Arab Team for domain names and Internet issues o Michele Neylon :: Blacknight o Debra Y. Hughes - American Red Cross Note: The AfriICANN/Afralo Statement was presented at the ICANN Brussels meeting and also submitted to the public forum. 2.2 Summary of Comments and WG Analysis The comments captured below are excerpts of the actual comments and have been organized by topic followed by a short summary of the WG discussions From: ICANN African Community (22 June 2010) 1 The Members of the African Community, consisting of the AFRALO and the AfrICANN, attending the 38th ICANN meeting in Brussels, jointly discussed the possible support to be given to new gtld applicants in Africa, who need assistance in applying for, and operating the gtlds. As members of the community, we: Welcome the Board resolution 20 related to the support for Applicants requesting assistance in applying for and operating new gtlds. 1 This comment was posted by mistake in the Applicant Guidebook, version 4 Public Forum

16 Express our gratitude to the Board members for their consideration of the community concerns about the cost of applying for new gtlds that might hinder applicants, especially those from developing countries. Strongly believe that entrepreneur applicants from African countries, where the market is not wide enough for a reasonable profit making industry, are eligible for support. Deem that Civil society, NGOs and non for profit organizations in Africa are the most in need of such support, because they have a deep impact in society since they work at the grass-root level. Believe that support is of utmost importance for geographic, cultural linguistic, and more generally community based applications. Urge that support to new gtld applicants in Africa be prioritised since this support will be an incitement for new aspirants to come forward and apply for new gtlds. Believe that the support to be provided to applicants of new gtlds in Africa should include, but is not limited to the following: Financial, by reducing the application and the on-going fees Linguistic, by translating all the application documents, especially the Applicant Guidebook, in the six UN languages Legal, by assisting the applicants in preparing their applications properly. Technical, by helping the applicants to define the infrastructure options, addressing the issue of infrastructure problems in some African countries; such as IPV6, internet connectivity etc. Strongly support that cost reduction is the key element in fulfilling the goals of ICANN Board s Resolution 20 within the principles of the recovery of the application and ongoing costs. Propose that the following be entertained to achieve cost reduction: Waiving the cost of Program Development ($26k). Waiving the Risk/Contingency cost ($60k). Lowering the application cost ($100k) Waiving the Registry fixed fees ($25k per calendar year), and charge the Registry- Level Transaction Fee only ($0.25 per domain name registration or renewal). Propose that the reduced cost be paid incrementally, which will give the African applicants more time to raise money, and investors will be more encouraged to fund an application that passes the initial evaluation. Believe that African communities apply for new gtlds according to an appropriate business model taking into consideration the realities of the African region. ICANN s commitment towards supporting gtld applicants in Africa will be a milestone to the development of the overall Internet community in Africa Since Africa is disadvantaged and lagging behind due to the digital divide, we strongly suggest that ICANN provides supplementary support and additional cost reduction for gtlds applications from African countries 16

17 WG discussion summary: The Milestone Report has been further clarified in relation to who can apply, particularly the fact that the recommendations are not restricted to non-for-profits. For all applicants, regardless of the entity type, the main criterion for eligibility is need and support would not be given through this program unless the need criterion is met. The WG nevertheless believes that by narrowing the initial focus/round to a relatively limited identifiable set of potential applicants, the proposed applicant support program would potentially present political resistance and be controversy. This is why the cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups are proposed as a starting point and this could be revisited for future rounds. It has also been a consensus among the WG members that the funds should not be further limited or prioritize applicants from a certain geographic location. The WG recognizes there might be applicants from Africa that are disadvantaged for a whole host of reasons, for instance political, economic, linguistic, logistical, etc. However, the proposal presented at this time does not envision automatically qualifying nor prioritizing an applicant for support simply based on a specific continent of origin/establishment. One must take into account that countries and entities within a specific continent and country have diversity in financial status and needs. Detailed discussions about the practical aspects of such criterion for prioritization presented to be challenging and unnecessarily open doors to various forms of gaming, which would be difficult to address, at least at this stage of the New gtld Program getting close to launch. The WG further acknowledges that the definition of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) may differ depending on the jurisdiction and the organizations legal status could also change over the course of time. Another important point is the fact that just because an entity is an NGO, it does not make it necessarily in need of support since there are many examples of NGOs around the world have adequate resources. There were some concerns raised by the WG during this discussion, for example: Should we speak of future rounds not knowing if they will happen and if they do when? Are we at risk to limit innovation if targeting the support during the first round to the linguistic and ethnic group only? From: G. Kirikos (20 July 2010) ICANN does not value public input. We will passively resist by not participating in a process that only leads to predetermined outcomes. We request that ICANN notify the community when it is ready and willing to demonstrate that it properly values public comments. WG discussion summary: This comment is not directly related to this WG proposal or work, however it should be noted that this WG has listened and responded to comments. 17

18 2.2.3 From: Neustar; Blacknight Solutions (21 July 2010) (Neustar) Agreement that support should be provided for certain gtld applicants in some limited cases. Neustar agrees that in some limited circumstances special consideration should be given to applicants proposing certain types of gtlds, who otherwise would not have the financial means or access to resources or expertise required to participate. Neustar supports the staggered fee approach recommended by the Working Group and the use of some portion of any auction proceeds to provide a partial refund of application fees to qualified applicants. Given the challenge posed by a minimum annual fee of $25,000 for some disadvantaged applicants, Neustar supports elimination or reduction of fees for disadvantaged applicants, but only in circumstances where registration volumes do not support payment of the annual minimum. The Working Group s proposed initial qualifications and criteria are appropriate (targeting certain communities, geographies and languages), but some additional thought should be given to the evaluation process for applicants wishing to participate, including the timing and resources required. Transparency--including information about the applicants, program applications, and financial or other support--is important to foster confidence in the program. Neustar intends to participate in the program by providing support of some kind to qualified Applicants. (Blacknight Solutions) ICANN seems to think that TLDs in the new regime need to be slotted into a one size fits all scenario. This is neither realistic not does it truly fit with ICANN s own goals which are often summed up by Rod Beckstrom as One World. One Internet. Everyone Connected. To make this a reality, economic barriers need to be removed where appropriate. The Working Group documents recognize that strict criteria for economic exceptions need to be laid down and that only a limited number of applicants would meet the criteria. Several companies, including Blacknight Solutions, have stated that they would be willing to offer services to qualified applicants. WG discussion summary: The WG welcomes the involvement and intent to support several entities have expressed in the past months and expects a larger number of companies and individuals come forward to join and strengthen this program. The Milestone Report acknowledges that applicants can benefit from a broad range of assistance beyond financial, including logistical, outreach, technical, administrative (application), etc. This broad range of assistance adds flexibility and diversity to a support program that hopefully can increase participation in the New gtld process from around the world. 18

19 Although the Milestone Report presents a broad range of recommendations and there has been an effort to make it comprehensive, at this phase of the work, the recommendations detailed. The WG believe this is a beginning and further work will be carried not only by staff and policy, but also by various parties interested in helping in this evolving initiative. With this approach, the WG also believes there is more flexibility added to the implementation process and expects to see some or most aspects of the Milestone Report implemented in the first round From: American Red Cross (22 July 2010) Not-for-profit organizations request that ICANN set lower costs. Not-for-profit groups are concerned about the costs of the new gtld program, both application-related and enforcement-related. The Red Cross strongly urges ICANN to consider that not-for-profit organizations may use a proposed new gtld for internal business purposes under a model that is different from a commercial, profit-driven new gtld. Red Cross is concerned that the various costs place the acquisition of a new gtld out of reach of most not-for-profit organizations. The fees represent resources that must be allocated from funds that Red Cross and other groups would otherwise spend on directly serving the public. Red Cross requests that ICANN set a lower cost for not-for-profit organizations such as Red Cross in light of the significant and important role new gtlds owned by these groups would serve for the ICANN community. Support for Working Team 1 recommendations. Red Cross agrees with the intent of the following Working Team 1 recommendations: waiving the cost of Program Development for selected entities; staggered fees; auction proceeds partial refund; lower registry fixed fees due to ICANN; reconsideration of the risk/contingency cost per applicant; and consideration of reduction of the fixed/variable cost of US $100K for applicants that meet the Working Group criteria. Working Team 2 Recommendations: Red Cross offers the following comments: Initial/pilot phase also support not-for-profit organizations: Red Cross agrees with targeting support to ethnic and linguistic communities and also proposes that support be given to not-for-profit organizations during the initial/pilot phase. Red Cross disagrees with the recommendation that support for other groups, especially NGOs and civil society organizations, should be addressed at a later point. We strongly urge the Working Group and ICANN to consider support for not-forprofit organizations as soon as possible. Red Cross recommends immediate support during the initial/pilot phase for not-for-profit organizations that would use a new gtld to communicate with the public about their mission and services, to engage in activities to increase social inclusion of non-governmental organizations with technology, to distribute educational, informational or lifesaving information to members of their communities, or to collect donations to support their operations. These potential applicants, whose mission, objectives and status can be verified and 19

20 approved by the Working Group/ICANN criteria, are the type of potential applicants for which support is non-controversial. Red Cross agrees that the geographic location of the applicant is one of many factors that could be considered when deciding to provide support to applicants. Red Cross believes that the recommendations regarding groups not to be supported at this time lack sufficient specificity to provide meaningful comments. Significant outreach and education efforts are needed and should begin immediately and then increase once the final Applicant Guidebook is released, allowing for the ability to timely ask questions and seek guidance. ICANN should make information readily available about the new gtld processes and procedures to potential applicants in underserved markets and to certain groups such as not-for-profit organizations that may not be as engaged in ICANN activities. ICANN should improve its education and outreach services especially to not-for-profit organizations such as Red Cross to ensure that its user community is able to navigate the process and is not excluded or negatively impacted. In the outreach the provided information should address the application process as well as information of interest to those not applying for new gtlds (e.g. objection procedures, rights protection mechanisms). Also, advice about the technical requirements for operating a new TLD (e.g. details of Modules 2 and 5) should be provided in this outreach to these targeted populations, regions and organizations, especially since those details are likely to be daunting to groups that have not previously operated a registry. Outreach should occur in all five ICANN regions and ICANN should provide live, inperson seminars open to the public, rather than only posting educational information on the ICANN website or hosting webinars. Fee reduction/subsidization and/or phased in payment of fees for deserving applicants. Red Cross supports the intent of this recommendation. The current proposed payment schedule and fees will be prohibitive and could impact the ability of not-for-profit organizations to fund and fulfill their mission-related activities and objectives. Technical support (infrastructure, education/consulting regarding DNSSEC, possible technical waivers or step ups, lower cost or shared back end registry services). Red Cross supports the intent of the recommendation especially since many applicants will be new to registry operations. Red Cross generally supports discounted pricing for or assistance with new gtld back end registry services. Support for build out in underserved languages, IDNs for new gtlds, price discounts to incentivize build out in scripts with limited web presence, bundled pricing to promote build out in multiple scripts at once, tests to prevent gaming and ensure 20

21 support reaches its targets. Generally Red Cross supports discounted pricing for new gtlds. WG discussion summary: The WG thanks the Red Cross and all other entities that explicitly took the time to support this important work. Some of the points raised were clarified in previous comment analysis, for example the simple fact that en entity holds a non-profit status, it does not mean this entity is financially unable to cover the fees and meets the need criterion. The WG further acknowledges that the Red Cross notion of non-profit refers specifically to charitable and service organizations that attempt to keep the overhead as low as possible so that most of their funding can go to the victims/causes they are meant to help. It is important to stress that the most important criterion is the need. At this stage, the need criterion is more important than the intention of the string or the structure or form of the applicant. The intent is, for the initial round, to focus and narrow the support to ethnic/linguistic communities since this is a less controversial group and will likely generate political support for this initiative. Also, these potential applicants have the benefits of being relatively well defined as groups, and pass the test of being generally non-controversial. Such communities already have a history of recognition at ICANN and facilitating community on the Internet is one of ICANN s core values. Within the WG there was some sentiment that support might be offered to groups that provide assistance to underserved communities, including in rare cases to applicants that might otherwise not qualify on the basis of need From: Arab Team (21 July 2010) The Government support prohibition is overbroad, and the financial instrument requirement in case of registry failure is major barrier to entry. The Arab Team appreciates ICANN s and the Working Group s recognition of the important issue of applicant support. The ICANN GAC communiqué in connection with the issue of inclusiveness as a priority and not through program requirements excluding developing country stakeholders from participating in the new gtld process is also important. Two important points need to be taken into account before issuance of a Milestone Report: (1) The proposal to prohibit any support from applications in connection with governments is overly broad and inappropriate; (2) While we are supportive of the need to ensure the protection of registrants in the event of a registry failure, the primary reliance by ICANN on a financial instrument is misguided. Other mechanisms exist to safeguard registrants in case of a registry failure. The potential posting of a financial instrument prior to launch of the gtld represents a much more substantial barrier to entry than the application fee. The Working Group should address what other support mechanisms exist in the potential case of registry failure and how they could be made available to applicants. 21

22 WG discussion summary: The Milestone Report has further clarified the issue raised. It is not the intent of the WG to propose that governments do not qualify or cannot participate to receive support through this program. Nevertheless, after careful consideration, it has been consensus of the WG that the support should not be used to subsidize a largely and purely government initiative. That said, if the proposal requesting assistance is majority government funding or a majority government sponsor, it should not qualify. The WG acknowledges that this is a complex issue, particularly for the first round and raises important questions, such as: (a) Are governments part of a needy group? (b) How should a government led initiative be defined? The proposal implementation details might require further details that address definition of projects in terms of persons, percentages, which would lead to a difficult and potentially controversial implementation process. The WG reached a consensus that the current proposal should stay as it is, with additional clarification that an applicant with a government funding might qualify for support, however, the support is not intended for applications that are primarily government financed and supported. The WG also agrees that it would be better if the program was multilingual, but it is difficult to implement in this round since it would require a major revamping of ICANN s processes and operations. ICANN needs to continue ensuring that informational materials are available in multiple languages. The WG further acknowledges that part of the support that can be offered to applicants is assistance with English applications and contracts (ICANN Registry Agreement). In terms of the continuity instrument, the WG did discuss this issue and recommended some possible solutions. As part of the continuing work being considered for charter extension, this will be looked at further From: D. Younger (24 June 2010) NGO Domain Proposal. The time is ripe for a new general organizational category TLD managed by IANA on a non-fee basis to serve the needs of the developing world in a sustainable manner and obviate the prospect of a multitude of new TLD applications each requiring some degree of support provisioning. The creation of a new TLD offering a form of relief to the disadvantaged among us should not have to be complex but should be a fairly straightforward proposition that reflects the community s will and commitment. An NGO domain comports well with fulfilling ICANN s charitable mission. An NGO domain would meet the principles set forth by the ICANN Business Constituency that new TLDs must meet (i.e., differentiation, certainty, honesty, competition, diversity and meaning). 22